6 ms·

I heartily agree with the premise, and there's this compounding problem: "To make matters worse, the owner's insurance policy didn't cover comprehensive claims

by ademup 5y ago

I heartily agree with the premise, and there's this compounding problem: "To make matters worse, the owner's insurance policy didn't cover comprehensive claims from road debris..." So when you combine these two issues, you end up with an unwritten, mob-boss-esque command of something like "Buy the most expensive insurance for all of your expensive widgets so that you can (maybe) be covered in the event that something minor happens" Seems anti-consumer all the way down.

1123581321 5y ago
He didn’t have comprehensive at all. Comprehensive is cheap with a deductible of a few hundred. People don’t forgo it unless they’re driving a junker. Reading the comments on the article, it sounds like the lack of comprehensive might have been a mistake during transferring policies between cars. If so, that’s a brutal consequence of an easy misclick or misstatement without a double check.
- vb6sp6 5y ago
  if you finance a car, is comprehensive required?
  - endisneigh 5y ago
    usually, yes.
  - namelessoracle 5y ago
    Usually full coverage is required for buying a car with a loan. Under the idea that the bank wants their asset protected. Lease rules may be different and may be more exploitative.
  - nickthegreek 5y ago
    Yep.
- brigade 5y ago
  The first half is strictly true though - comprehensive doesn’t cover road debris; you have to file under collision and unlike comprehensive the premiums are more expensive and claims are solely your fault for the damage, increasing them further. Leases still near universally require collision coverage though, because they want damage fixed.
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    That makes this even more surprising if so, because a policy on that car without collision should’ve raised a gigantic red flag with his carrier.
    - brigade 5y ago
      My suspicion is that he did have collision and comprehensive, thought “obviously damage from road debris falls under my no-fault comprehensive,” then found out that it doesn’t unless it never actually touched the road. And either no one told him that it has to be a collision claim, or he just decided not to bother with a $700 collision claim after he got an independent estimate (and complain to the author that debris ought to be covered by comprehensive instead of being treated the same as you hitting a wall.)
      - kube-system 5y ago
        This is exactly it. The guy doesn't want a $16,000 at-fault claim on his record.
        a1369209993 5y ago
        > The guy doesn't want a $16,000 at-fault claim on his record. Pedantically[0], he doesn't want a $16,000 no-fault claim misclassified as at-fault on his record. See: > > obviously damage from road debris falls under my no-fault comprehensive 0: The record entry would be the same (eg "road debris, at-fault") either way.
        5y ago
- leonhandreke 5y ago
  Whether or not he was insured against this particular damage doesn't make the cost of the repair less outrageous. In the end, drivers will be paying for these repairs, whether directly or through "cheap" monthly insurance payments that hide these occasional events. (I guess similar arguments could be made about other insurance markets)
  - 1123581321 5y ago
    Yes, as you noted, you’re basically describing the general principle of insurance. :) I don’t own a Tesla but insurance for their cars is already relatively more expensive in several states. This can be readily seen in annual or semi-annual policies. Monthly payment policies that cost more per annum are a concern to me, but don’t factor into underwriting analysis at the make/model level.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      I was under the impression that the cost in insuring Teslas was down to the slow repair times, since insurance companies were often on the hook for rental cars while parts are on back order.
- mcguire 5y ago
  How do you lease a car without comprehensive insurance?
cptskippy 5y ago
In this case, the guy leasing the car was required to have comprehensive coverage on the car and didn't. Tesla failed to verify this fact when they turned the car over to him. Ultimately it's the guy's responsibility to insure the car properly and he didn't so he was on the hook for the cost of the repair regardless of what it cost.
xtracto 5y ago
Aaah Insurance strikes again. Insurance is a scam that somehow as a society we have allowed to normalize in our society. The Insurance system just doesn't make sense, that's why we see so many problems with car, health, death and other types of insurance. The problem lies in that both parties have misaligned and often oposite objectives: The Insurer's main goal is to maximize their profit, and the levers it has is to avoid paying the insured as much as possible. That's why we have so many denied payments and abuse in the case of health insurance. Moreover, given that every insurance claim is a single case for the Insurer, they have the upper hand and oftentimes there is no recourse for the insured to really fight an unjust insurance denial. We must find an alternative for this terrible system...
- ademup 5y ago
  I couldn't agree more. Anecdote: I have been waiting for 2 weeks for insurance to "approve" an angiogram + interventiin that two cardiologists agree that I need immediately. I am a single 43yo male on a $1,000\mo insurance plan.("reduced" to "only" $550\mo by coverer california). If I ever manage to get powerful and\or wealthy, I will task myself with fighting the scourge that is the insurance cabals tooth and nail.
  - KirillPanov 5y ago
    The sad part is that when you become wealthy, you realize that you can just ignore the whole insurance scam [*] and not buy it. Insurance has negative expected value. It only makes sense to insure against events that would materially change your lifestyle. At a certain degree of wealth, your house burning down no longer has that effect, nor does just about anything other than lawsuits or medical problems. Even health insurance typically has lifetime maximums in the single-digit millions. So don't look to the wealthy to fix this one. They don't have this problem. [*] except health insurance [**] and vehicular liability insurance where required by law in places that do not allow posting a cash bond instead (almost every state in the US does). [**] unless you're wealthy enough to make large donations to hospitals, which is much better than having health insurance.
    - 5y ago

by ademup 5y ago

1123581321 5y ago

He didn’t have comprehensive at all. Comprehensive is cheap with a deductible of a few hundred. People don’t forgo it unless they’re driving a junker. Reading the comments on the article, it sounds like the lack of comprehensive might have been a mistake during transferring policies between cars. If so, that’s a brutal consequence of an easy misclick or misstatement without a double check.

vb6sp6 5y ago
if you finance a car, is comprehensive required?
- endisneigh 5y ago
  usually, yes.
- namelessoracle 5y ago
  Usually full coverage is required for buying a car with a loan. Under the idea that the bank wants their asset protected. Lease rules may be different and may be more exploitative.
- nickthegreek 5y ago
  Yep.
brigade 5y ago
The first half is strictly true though - comprehensive doesn’t cover road debris; you have to file under collision and unlike comprehensive the premiums are more expensive and claims are solely your fault for the damage, increasing them further. Leases still near universally require collision coverage though, because they want damage fixed.
- 1123581321 5y ago
  That makes this even more surprising if so, because a policy on that car without collision should’ve raised a gigantic red flag with his carrier.
  - brigade 5y ago
    My suspicion is that he did have collision and comprehensive, thought “obviously damage from road debris falls under my no-fault comprehensive,” then found out that it doesn’t unless it never actually touched the road. And either no one told him that it has to be a collision claim, or he just decided not to bother with a $700 collision claim after he got an independent estimate (and complain to the author that debris ought to be covered by comprehensive instead of being treated the same as you hitting a wall.)
    - kube-system 5y ago
      This is exactly it. The guy doesn't want a $16,000 at-fault claim on his record.
      - a1369209993 5y ago
        > The guy doesn't want a $16,000 at-fault claim on his record. Pedantically[0], he doesn't want a $16,000 no-fault claim misclassified as at-fault on his record. See: > > obviously damage from road debris falls under my no-fault comprehensive 0: The record entry would be the same (eg "road debris, at-fault") either way.
        5y ago
leonhandreke 5y ago
Whether or not he was insured against this particular damage doesn't make the cost of the repair less outrageous. In the end, drivers will be paying for these repairs, whether directly or through "cheap" monthly insurance payments that hide these occasional events. (I guess similar arguments could be made about other insurance markets)
- 1123581321 5y ago
  Yes, as you noted, you’re basically describing the general principle of insurance. :) I don’t own a Tesla but insurance for their cars is already relatively more expensive in several states. This can be readily seen in annual or semi-annual policies. Monthly payment policies that cost more per annum are a concern to me, but don’t factor into underwriting analysis at the make/model level.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    I was under the impression that the cost in insuring Teslas was down to the slow repair times, since insurance companies were often on the hook for rental cars while parts are on back order.
mcguire 5y ago
How do you lease a car without comprehensive insurance?

cptskippy 5y ago

In this case, the guy leasing the car was required to have comprehensive coverage on the car and didn't. Tesla failed to verify this fact when they turned the car over to him. Ultimately it's the guy's responsibility to insure the car properly and he didn't so he was on the hook for the cost of the repair regardless of what it cost.

xtracto 5y ago

Aaah Insurance strikes again. Insurance is a scam that somehow as a society we have allowed to normalize in our society. The Insurance system just doesn't make sense, that's why we see so many problems with car, health, death and other types of insurance. The problem lies in that both parties have misaligned and often oposite objectives: The Insurer's main goal is to maximize their profit, and the levers it has is to avoid paying the insured as much as possible. That's why we have so many denied payments and abuse in the case of health insurance. Moreover, given that every insurance claim is a single case for the Insurer, they have the upper hand and oftentimes there is no recourse for the insured to really fight an unjust insurance denial. We must find an alternative for this terrible system...

ademup 5y ago
I couldn't agree more. Anecdote: I have been waiting for 2 weeks for insurance to "approve" an angiogram + interventiin that two cardiologists agree that I need immediately. I am a single 43yo male on a $1,000\mo insurance plan.("reduced" to "only" $550\mo by coverer california). If I ever manage to get powerful and\or wealthy, I will task myself with fighting the scourge that is the insurance cabals tooth and nail.
- KirillPanov 5y ago
  The sad part is that when you become wealthy, you realize that you can just ignore the whole insurance scam [*] and not buy it. Insurance has negative expected value. It only makes sense to insure against events that would materially change your lifestyle. At a certain degree of wealth, your house burning down no longer has that effect, nor does just about anything other than lawsuits or medical problems. Even health insurance typically has lifetime maximums in the single-digit millions. So don't look to the wealthy to fix this one. They don't have this problem. [*] except health insurance [**] and vehicular liability insurance where required by law in places that do not allow posting a cash bond instead (almost every state in the US does). [**] unless you're wealthy enough to make large donations to hospitals, which is much better than having health insurance.
  - 5y ago